Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Thoughts on this type of argument

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 12:41:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
(Assuming space-time began at The Big Bang.)

P1: In order for a cause to exist, it must have time to occur and space occur in.

P2: Space-time began at The Big Bang

P3: An external cause of The Big Bang makes no sense.

Defense of P2 is rather intuitive.

Example

If I cause a book to fall over with my arm then my arm must have space to move and it must have enough time to reach the book to cause it to fall over.

Example 2

If I create a sand castle there has to be space for the sand castle to exist and there has to be time for the same castle to be made.

The defense of P2 is based on a consensus regarding The Big Bang.

Most cosmologists agree that space-time began at The Big Bang

The defense of P3 is based on the soundness of the first 2 premises.

Now some theists will tell me that I am making the mistake of thinking there are no exceptions to basic principles. They will say that just because I don't know of any causes that don't take place in space and time doesn't mean they are not possible…

…If this is this refutation is to be accepted, then it's clear that the theist is an allowed to assert one type of possible exceptions:

"All examples of causes need space and time, that doesn't mean a cause can't occur without space or time"

So if that is fine, then it would be fine for me to be allowed to assert one type of possible exceptions:

"All examples of events need causes, that doesn't mean that events can't occur without causes"

What are your thoughts?
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 1:31:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
the Liebnizian cosmological argument works from why something happened, not how, I believe.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 2:17:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 1:31:37 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
the Liebnizian cosmological argument works from why something happened, not how, I believe.

Regardless, the how trumps the why by default.

Example

If someone wants to prove that a pizza man delivered pizza to a house, which explanation would be more convincing, the "why" or the "what"?

The why: The pizza man had to have money. Delivering pizzas pays money, therefore, he got a job as a pizza man and delivered the pizza to the house.

The how: He stepped in his car and put food in the back of the car at 8:30 , took 20 minutes to get to the house, got out of the car at 8:50 and rang on the doorbell, and handed a dough mixed with cheese and sauce over to the people in the house.

If one argument coincides with the "how" and another only coincides with the "why", then the stronger argument by default is the one explaining if the how is possible or not and how it happened if it did.

In a murder case for example they don't all sit around and think "I wonder why this happened.." for the whole time. They use science to figure out how it happened because it's more concrete than any "why".
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 3:55:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Revision:

1. In order for a natural event to occur, it must have time and space to occur in.
2. A natural cause is a type of natural event
3. In order for a natural cause to take place, it must have time and space to occur in.

Does this proof make any room for supernatural causes?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 5:22:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 3:55:49 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Revision:

1. In order for a natural event to occur, it must have time and space to occur in.
2. A natural cause is a type of natural event
3. In order for a natural cause to take place, it must have time and space to occur in.

Does this proof make any room for supernatural causes?

Nope, because a cause is something that exists within time and space. To assume a cause can exist outside time and space makes no sense and is contradictory because without time you cannot have enough time to cause something and without space the cause cannot take place in anything.

Adding the word "supernatural" doesn't suddenly make a cause outside of time and space make sense, so your refutation fails because you presuppose a supernatural world without evidence.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 5:27:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 3:55:49 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Revision:

1. In order for a natural event to occur, it must have time and space to occur in.
2. A natural cause is a type of natural event
3. In order for a natural cause to take place, it must have time and space to occur in.

Does this proof make any room for supernatural causes?

Revision of KCA.

1. Things that "begin to exist" within the universe require causes
2. The universe began to exist
3. The universe had a cause

Does the above proof somehow exclude a non caused universe? Nope, because just because causes apply within the universe doesn't mean they apply to the universe as a whole. Saying that the universe must be causes is committing the fallacy of composition.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 5:45:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 5:22:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Nope, because a cause is something that exists within time and space.

Why?

To assume a cause can exist outside time and space makes no sense and is contradictory because without time you cannot have enough time to cause something

Suppose the cause is the initiation of time?

and without space the cause cannot take place in anything.

The occurrence needs space to manifest, but space is not necessarily required by a cause. Suppose the cause takes place outside of space and the measurable change occurs within it?

Adding the word "supernatural" doesn't suddenly make a cause outside of time and space make sense, so your refutation fails because you presuppose a supernatural world without evidence.

Evolutionary, our intelligence was not selected for the pure philosophical and truthful understanding of the universe. It was selected such that we can understand and interact with our environment in a rudimentary fashion.

In short, you assume that the limits of our logic coincide with the limits of reality. Do you really have any basis in making this statement? Actually, scratch that, do humans even have the CAPACITY to prove this statement? Why do you assume that contradictions to the axioms of logic are necessarily absolute violations of reality?

Simply saying that what I say doesn't make sense, doesn't mean you've actually posited any useful argument against an entity that is purported to be the source of all time, space, and existence. It's like trying to test the temperature of the sun with a baby thermometer.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 6:00:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
In the Kalam argument by William Craig cause is not used strictly in the scientific sense. Yes people have raised this objection before about a possible equivocation on what is mean't by "cause" in this argument.

I think (not 100% certain here) that the scientific concept of cause is as you presented, within the context of time, no time, no causality.

The Kalam argument uses the term cause in a more general sense that isn't dependent on time, it defines cause something like something that brings something else into existence, and hence why God even though "time less" can said to be the cause of the universe.
"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
3/10/2012 6:06:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 5:45:12 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 3/10/2012 5:22:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Nope, because a cause is something that exists within time and space.

Why?

To assume a cause can exist outside time and space makes no sense and is contradictory because without time you cannot have enough time to cause something

Suppose the cause is the initiation of time?

and without space the cause cannot take place in anything.

The occurrence needs space to manifest, but space is not necessarily required by a cause. Suppose the cause takes place outside of space and the measurable change occurs within it?

Adding the word "supernatural" doesn't suddenly make a cause outside of time and space make sense, so your refutation fails because you presuppose a supernatural world without evidence.

Evolutionary, our intelligence was not selected for the pure philosophical and truthful understanding of the universe. It was selected such that we can understand and interact with our environment in a rudimentary fashion.

In short, you assume that the limits of our logic coincide with the limits of reality. Do you really have any basis in making this statement? Actually, scratch that, do humans even have the CAPACITY to prove this statement? Why do you assume that contradictions to the axioms of logic are necessarily absolute violations of reality?

Simply saying that what I say doesn't make sense, doesn't mean you've actually posited any useful argument against an entity that is purported to be the source of all time, space, and existence. It's like trying to test the temperature of the sun with a baby thermometer.

" Suppose the cause is the initiation of time?"

How can something that requires time be the reason time exists? You make no sense.

" Suppose the cause takes place outside of space and the measurable change occurs within it? "

A can a cause exist without space to cause something? Without space there is no room for change and cause is not possible without change.

Also I don't suppose anything, I already explained that pre-supposing things without reasoning and evidence is illogical.

"Evolutionary, our intelligence was not selected for the pure philosophical and truthful understanding of the universe. It was selected such that we can understand and interact with our environment in a rudimentary fashion."

Exactly, meaning you can't use your natural logic based on nature (cause and effect) to justify a cause for the universe as a whole.

": In short, you assume that the limits of our logic coincide with the limits of reality."

No I don't you do. You assume that the limited minds which conceived of cause and effect has to apply to the universe as a whole, you are the one thinking small about reality by claiming the universe requires a cause based off of your limited knowledge (cause and effect).

"Do you really have any basis in making this statement?"

Do you have a basis for saying the universe must be caused? Or that a cause is possible without time and space? Nope.

"Actually, scratch that, do humans even have the CAPACITY to prove this statement?"

No, so saying that universe must have a cause if fallacious because we don't know.

"Why do you assume that contradictions to the axioms of logic are necessarily absolute violations of reality?"

I don't, you do.
You assume that because it's illogical for the something to exist uncaused based on your knowledge of within the universe, that the universe can not be uncaused in reality.

Basically I already addressed all this in the "type of exception of something".

If you feel you can have the right to an exception:

You : Ya causes need space and time, but God is doesn't follow the rules of within the universe so he's the exception

Then I can have an exception:

Me: Ya events need causes, but the universe as a whole doesn't have to follow the laws within the universe so it's the exception.

Claiming that you get an exception and I don't is unfair, and shows you have no arguments on fair grounds.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 6:20:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Basically if the theist is aloud "a cause without time and space", then I am aloud an "event without a cause."

It's only fair.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 7:22:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 6:06:25 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
" Suppose the cause is the initiation of time?"

How can something that requires time be the reason time exists? You make no sense.

That's the thing. I'm questioning your assumption that a cause REQUIRES time. I know you're adamant that it does, but I don't think that's true. Let me explain.

Time only exists when change does, or when things change at a different rate relative to other things. I think we can agree on that. A stagnant universe in which no change occurs would definitively mean that no time passes.

Cause and time are related only by this principle of change. Cause is the change of existence states. Something doesn't exist, then it exists, be it an event, an object, etc.

(CAUSE) --------> (OUTCOME)
MEASURABLE TIME

If it just so happened that no change in the universe existed, then time would not exist. If time did not exist, then it is possible for a cause to exist outside time, but the very outcome of that cause, would be that it initiates time.

A can a cause exist without space to cause something? Without space there is no room for change and cause is not possible without change.

Think about what you mean when you say "cause is not possible without change". Cause necessarily leads to change, but why is cause impossible without change?

It's about when one occurs versus the other. It's correct to say that after a cause, change MUST occur. It is incorrect to say that cause requires change.

Also I don't suppose anything, I already explained that pre-supposing things without reasoning and evidence is illogical.

Not in the case of something so inherently metaphysical. If you can't push the limits of what you accept as reality, there's absolutely no use in pursuing a debate on the existence of God. You can't conclude that God does not exist, the most you can hope to do is conclude that God is not NATURAL, which no theist or atheist denies.

"Evolutionary, our intelligence was not selected for the pure philosophical and truthful understanding of the universe. It was selected such that we can understand and interact with our environment in a rudimentary fashion."

Exactly, meaning you can't use your natural logic based on nature (cause and effect) to justify a cause for the universe as a whole.

Nor can you use it to develop truth statements as to whether or not something definitively supernatural exists, does not exist, or can exist.

No I don't you do. You assume that the limited minds which conceived of cause and effect has to apply to the universe as a whole, you are the one thinking small about reality by claiming the universe requires a cause based off of your limited knowledge (cause and effect).

I have done absolutely nothing of the sort. It is very common that theists propose a supernatural cause, as opposed to the commonly accepted (and perfectly reasonable) atheistic "no cause" or "natural cause" arguments. All I did was show that the rejection of the supernatural cause is based on the assumption that the limits of logic match the limits of reality.

Do you have a basis for saying the universe must be caused? Or that a cause is possible without time and space? Nope.

Completely and totally irrelevant. I am not and have never in the course of this discussion proposed an alternate explanation of the universe OVER the generally accepted atheistic explanations. All I have done and intend to do, is show that the only reason atheists have to reject a supernatural cause, is that they assume that the limits of logic match the limits of reality.

No, so saying that universe must have a cause if fallacious because we don't know.

I absolutely agree with you. It isn't absolutely necessary that the universe MUST have a cause. But what are your reasons for ruling it out if you don't want to admit that you make the assumption that the limits of logic match the limits of reality?

You assume that because it's illogical for the something to exist uncaused based on your knowledge of within the universe, that the universe can not be uncaused in reality.

I don't do that at all. I think you're under the illusion that I'm a theist.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 7:29:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 6:20:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Basically if the theist is aloud "a cause without time and space", then I am aloud an "event without a cause."

It's only fair.

In this particular argument, it will be argued you can't have en event/effect without a cause but you can have a cause that is timeless giving an effect that is temporal.

You can't get something from nothing will be invoked to rule out the event without a cause. But does accepting this rule then cancel out a timeless cause ? doesn't seem so.
"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
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 7:32:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 7:29:07 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
In this particular argument, it will be argued you can't have en event/effect without a cause but you can have a cause that is timeless giving an effect that is temporal.

Thank you for this. I mentioned the same point in my post above but could NOT for the life of me put it as succinctly as you did.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 9:14:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 7:29:07 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/10/2012 6:20:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Basically if the theist is aloud "a cause without time and space", then I am aloud an "event without a cause."

It's only fair.

In this particular argument, it will be argued you can't have en event/effect without a causebut you can have a cause that is timeless giving an effect that is temporal.

You can't get something from nothing will be invoked to rule out the event without a cause. But does accepting this rule then cancel out a timeless cause ? doesn't seem so.

"it will be argued you can't have en event/effect without a cause"

What are you basing this on? All the evidence we have only shows us that cause and effect applies within the universe and not to the universe as a whole. This would be the fallacy of equivocation if you apply a principle within the universe to the universe as a whole without any evidence.

"you can have a cause that is timeless giving an effect that is temporal. "

All examples of causes precede their effect, precede means before in time, so by definition a cause being applied to the universe as a whole (which contained space and time within it) is more counter intuitive than something from nothing.

For example, you can imagine nothing and then something popping into existence. However you cannot imagine a cause happening without time or in a space.

"You can't get something from nothing will be invoked to rule out the event without a cause."

"You can't get something from nothing" has nothing to do with cause and effect as far as current knowledge holds. All examples of causes involve changing the form of something or rearranging something not creatio ex nihilo. Applying the word "cause" to one type of causation to try and prove another causation (ex nihilo) is committing the equivocation fallacy.

"But does accepting this rule then cancel out a timeless cause ? doesn't seem so."

Your rules have not been accepted.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 9:15:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
*This would be the fallacy of composition if you apply a principle within the universe to the universe as a whole without any evidence.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 10:44:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 9:14:21 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/10/2012 7:29:07 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/10/2012 6:20:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Basically if the theist is aloud "a cause without time and space", then I am aloud an "event without a cause."

It's only fair.

In this particular argument, it will be argued you can't have en event/effect without a causebut you can have a cause that is timeless giving an effect that is temporal.

You can't get something from nothing will be invoked to rule out the event without a cause. But does accepting this rule then cancel out a timeless cause ? doesn't seem so.



"it will be argued you can't have en event/effect without a cause"

What are you basing this on? All the evidence we have only shows us that cause and effect applies within the universe and not to the universe as a whole. This would be the fallacy of equivocation if you apply a principle within the universe to the universe as a whole without any evidence.

Its based on the metaphysical claim that something can't come from nothing, from nothing, nothing comes. Its claimed that something from nothing is metaphysically impossible.


"you can have a cause that is timeless giving an effect that is temporal. "

All examples of causes precede their effect, precede means before in time, so by definition a cause being applied to the universe as a whole (which contained space and time within it) is more counter intuitive than something from nothing.

I thought there might be some examples of simultaneous cause/effect but I don't know on that.

If the universe has a cause, and time can't exist without the universe, then why can't the argument be made that the cause is timeless absent the universe ?

A timeless cause absent the universe is more counter intuitive than something from literally nothing ?.......Well you free to your own intuitions, other people might not share those.


For example, you can imagine nothing and then something popping into existence. However you cannot imagine a cause happening without time or in a space.

The cause in the KCA differs in two different contexts, absent the universe its timeless, with the universe as the cause of the universe it becomes temporal, as cause and effect happen within the context of time.


"You can't get something from nothing will be invoked to rule out the event without a cause."

"You can't get something from nothing" has nothing to do with cause and effect as far as current knowledge holds. All examples of causes involve changing the form of something or rearranging something not creatio ex nihilo. Applying the word "cause" to one type of causation to try and prove another causation (ex nihilo) is committing the equivocation fallacy.

Now who is committing the fallacy of composition ? just because some cause/effects are material to material that means all causes are material too material ?

It may or may not be an equivocation, it depends on how the argument is presented. It can be granted that the cause of the universe is not material to material, how does this dent the claim that from nothing, nothing comes, therefore something can only come from something.

"But does accepting this rule then cancel out a timeless cause ? doesn't seem so."

Your rules have not been accepted.
"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
3/11/2012 9:34:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 10:44:25 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/10/2012 9:14:21 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/10/2012 7:29:07 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/10/2012 6:20:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Basically if the theist is aloud "a cause without time and space", then I am aloud an "event without a cause."

It's only fair.

In this particular argument, it will be argued you can't have en event/effect without a causebut you can have a cause that is timeless giving an effect that is temporal.

You can't get something from nothing will be invoked to rule out the event without a cause. But does accepting this rule then cancel out a timeless cause ? doesn't seem so.



"it will be argued you can't have en event/effect without a cause"

What are you basing this on? All the evidence we have only shows us that cause and effect applies within the universe and not to the universe as a whole. This would be the fallacy of equivocation if you apply a principle within the universe to the universe as a whole without any evidence.

Its based on the metaphysical claim that something can't come from nothing, from nothing, nothing comes. Its claimed that something from nothing is metaphysically impossible.


"you can have a cause that is timeless giving an effect that is temporal. "

All examples of causes precede their effect, precede means before in time, so by definition a cause being applied to the universe as a whole (which contained space and time within it) is more counter intuitive than something from nothing.

I thought there might be some examples of simultaneous cause/effect but I don't know on that.

If the universe has a cause, and time can't exist without the universe, then why can't the argument be made that the cause is timeless absent the universe ?

A timeless cause absent the universe is more counter intuitive than something from literally nothing ?.......Well you free to your own intuitions, other people might not share those.


For example, you can imagine nothing and then something popping into existence. However you cannot imagine a cause happening without time or in a space.

The cause in the KCA differs in two different contexts, absent the universe its timeless, with the universe as the cause of the universe it becomes temporal, as cause and effect happen within the context of time.


"You can't get something from nothing will be invoked to rule out the event without a cause."

"You can't get something from nothing" has nothing to do with cause and effect as far as current knowledge holds. All examples of causes involve changing the form of something or rearranging something not creatio ex nihilo. Applying the word "cause" to one type of causation to try and prove another causation (ex nihilo) is committing the equivocation fallacy.

Now who is committing the fallacy of composition ? just because some cause/effects are material to material that means all causes are material too material ?

It may or may not be an equivocation, it depends on how the argument is presented. It can be granted that the cause of the universe is not material to material, how does this dent the claim that from nothing, nothing comes, therefore something can only come from something.

"But does accepting this rule then cancel out a timeless cause ? doesn't seem so."

Your rules have not been accepted.

"Its based on the metaphysical claim that something can't come from nothing, from nothing, nothing comes. Its claimed that something from nothing is metaphysically impossible."

I agree that something can't come from nothing, what does this have to do with cause and effect? Absolutely nothing.

"If the universe has a cause, and time can't exist without the universe, then why can't the argument be made that the cause is timeless absent the universe ?"

A cause is a label we applied to something that takes time and occurs in space. To infer a cause that takes place outside of time and space is extra-ordinary. Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence.

"with the universe as the cause of the universe it becomes temporal"

The universe is the cause now?

"A timeless cause absent the universe is more counter intuitive than something from literally nothing ?.......Well you free to your own intuitions, other people might not share those."

You can imagine something popping into existence out of nothing, you cannot imagine a cause taking place without time or space (try it). Therefore, it should be more counter intuitive.

"just because some cause/effects are material to material that means all causes are material too material ?"

That made no sense, if there is a cause outside of the universe of course it can't be material. The problem is you are committing the fallacy of assuming a cause in the first place, don'y you get it?

If you believe a cause must be applied to the universe because the parts of the universe require a cause then you are committing the fallacy.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 9:36:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 10:44:25 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/10/2012 9:14:21 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/10/2012 7:29:07 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/10/2012 6:20:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Basically if the theist is aloud "a cause without time and space", then I am aloud an "event without a cause."

It's only fair.

In this particular argument, it will be argued you can't have en event/effect without a causebut you can have a cause that is timeless giving an effect that is temporal.

You can't get something from nothing will be invoked to rule out the event without a cause. But does accepting this rule then cancel out a timeless cause ? doesn't seem so.



"it will be argued you can't have en event/effect without a cause"

What are you basing this on? All the evidence we have only shows us that cause and effect applies within the universe and not to the universe as a whole. This would be the fallacy of equivocation if you apply a principle within the universe to the universe as a whole without any evidence.

Its based on the metaphysical claim that something can't come from nothing, from nothing, nothing comes. Its claimed that something from nothing is metaphysically impossible.


"you can have a cause that is timeless giving an effect that is temporal. "

All examples of causes precede their effect, precede means before in time, so by definition a cause being applied to the universe as a whole (which contained space and time within it) is more counter intuitive than something from nothing.

I thought there might be some examples of simultaneous cause/effect but I don't know on that.

If the universe has a cause, and time can't exist without the universe, then why can't the argument be made that the cause is timeless absent the universe ?

A timeless cause absent the universe is more counter intuitive than something from literally nothing ?.......Well you free to your own intuitions, other people might not share those.


For example, you can imagine nothing and then something popping into existence. However you cannot imagine a cause happening without time or in a space.

The cause in the KCA differs in two different contexts, absent the universe its timeless, with the universe as the cause of the universe it becomes temporal, as cause and effect happen within the context of time.


"You can't get something from nothing will be invoked to rule out the event without a cause."

"You can't get something from nothing" has nothing to do with cause and effect as far as current knowledge holds. All examples of causes involve changing the form of something or rearranging something not creatio ex nihilo. Applying the word "cause" to one type of causation to try and prove another causation (ex nihilo) is committing the equivocation fallacy.

Now who is committing the fallacy of composition ? just because some cause/effects are material to material that means all causes are material too material ?

It may or may not be an equivocation, it depends on how the argument is presented. It can be granted that the cause of the universe is not material to material, how does this dent the claim that from nothing, nothing comes, therefore something can only come from something.

"But does accepting this rule then cancel out a timeless cause ? doesn't seem so."

Your rules have not been accepted.

I can't be committing the fallacy because I admit that if there is a cause of the universe it doesn't have to be material. You are committing the fallacy by assuming a cause of the whole universe to begin with.