Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

The LCA

Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 10:39:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've been looking at the Leibnizan Cosmological Argument recently, and I seem to have hit a snag. I'm having trouble understanding how it logically flows from premise to premise. For those who are familiar with the argument, can you explain how it flows? My thoughts are that it would be more logical and have a better flow to it if the third premise was moved to the top (so it would look like 3,1,2,4)
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 10:49:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 10:39:23 AM, Zaradi wrote:
I've been looking at the Leibnizan Cosmological Argument recently, and I seem to have hit a snag. I'm having trouble understanding how it logically flows from premise to premise. For those who are familiar with the argument, can you explain how it flows? My thoughts are that it would be more logical and have a better flow to it if the third premise was moved to the top (so it would look like 3,1,2,4)

Basically 1-3 are all premises, so it doesn't matter which order they appear.
#1 establishes that existing things need explanations
#2 establishes that, if the universe has an explanation, that explanation is god
#3 establishes that the universe is existing.

It may make more sense if #2 and #3 are swapped, but it doesn't really matter in terms of arriving at the conclusion.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 11:16:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 10:49:28 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/10/2012 10:39:23 AM, Zaradi wrote:
I've been looking at the Leibnizan Cosmological Argument recently, and I seem to have hit a snag. I'm having trouble understanding how it logically flows from premise to premise. For those who are familiar with the argument, can you explain how it flows? My thoughts are that it would be more logical and have a better flow to it if the third premise was moved to the top (so it would look like 3,1,2,4)

Basically 1-3 are all premises, so it doesn't matter which order they appear.
#1 establishes that existing things need explanations
#2 establishes that, if the universe has an explanation, that explanation is god
#3 establishes that the universe is existing.

It may make more sense if #2 and #3 are swapped, but it doesn't really matter in terms of arriving at the conclusion.

The Fool: Yeah but there is a Huge fallacy in the argument. In That Liebniz was an advocate, of the principle of suffient Reason.

This principle mean reason as in a cause, But the Theologins take the liberty of equivication a reason with a KNowable Reason. aka an explanation.

Secondly Modal logic is 20th century Leibnez is a 16th centuraly Rationalist. aka Determinist. Thus there is no possibites of existence..

Another equivation that is abused is contigent as an being Dependent vs Contingent as in possibility. Modal logic refers to possible worlds. Where the arguement uses contigent as in dependent.

The Final blow comes in the form that the passed has been determined. So it makes no sense logicalyl to say thing could have been different. For could implies a can and we can not time travel, because change itself is always foward, what happened in the past could not have been any other way.

The confusion with this one comes from the way we speak, in that we say' things could have been different', but this presupposes the clause (under different circumstances) it could have been different. but it was what it was so it couldn't have been any different.
"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
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 11:20:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 11:16:07 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/10/2012 10:49:28 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/10/2012 10:39:23 AM, Zaradi wrote:
I've been looking at the Leibnizan Cosmological Argument recently, and I seem to have hit a snag. I'm having trouble understanding how it logically flows from premise to premise. For those who are familiar with the argument, can you explain how it flows? My thoughts are that it would be more logical and have a better flow to it if the third premise was moved to the top (so it would look like 3,1,2,4)

Basically 1-3 are all premises, so it doesn't matter which order they appear.
#1 establishes that existing things need explanations
#2 establishes that, if the universe has an explanation, that explanation is god
#3 establishes that the universe is existing.

It may make more sense if #2 and #3 are swapped, but it doesn't really matter in terms of arriving at the conclusion.

The Fool: Yeah but there is a Huge fallacy in the argument. In That Liebniz was an advocate, of the principle of suffient Reason.

This principle mean reason as in a cause, But the Theologins take the liberty of equivication a reason with a KNowable Reason. aka an explanation.

Secondly Modal logic is 20th century Leibnez is a 16th centuraly Rationalist. aka Determinist. Thus there is no possibites of existence..

Another equivation that is abused is contigent as an being Dependent vs Contingent as in possibility. Modal logic refers to possible worlds. Where the arguement uses contigent as in dependent.

The Final blow comes in the form that the passed has been determined. So it makes no sense logicalyl to say thing could have been different. For could implies a can and we can not time travel, because change itself is always foward, what happened in the past could not have been any other way.

The confusion with this one comes from the way we speak, in that we say' things could have been different', but this presupposes the clause (under different circumstances) it could have been different. but it was what it was so it couldn't have been any different.

Sure. The quesiton, however, regarded the logical flow of the argumen. That is, does the conclusion flow from the premises. As far as I can tell, it does, as you can formalize it:

E(x) - "x exists"
X(x) - "x has an explanation for its existence"

1. E(x) -> X(x)
2. X(Universe) -> "God did it!"
3. E(Universe)
4. "God did it!"

Now, I guess you could ding him for not explicitly showing his work. The following is implied:

3.5) X(Universe) [From 1, 3; modus ponens]

And then 4 flows from 2 and 3.5 (also modus ponens).
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 11:42:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The logical flow of the argument is interrupted by possibility. The possibility takes out the truth preservation of logical entailment.
"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
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 11:42:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
aka the truth is not preserved from the premises to conclusion.
"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
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 11:45:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is the complete argument:

The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument (LCA)

p1 Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
p2 If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
p3 The universe is an existing thing.
C1 Therefore the explanation of the universe is God.
"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
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 11:52:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 11:42:07 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The logical flow of the argument is interrupted by possibility. The possibility takes out the truth preservation of logical entailment.

The argument doesn't address possibilities. So even if you think that possibilities need to be addressed in discussing this topic, you're no longer talking about LCA.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 11:57:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 11:52:28 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/10/2012 11:42:07 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The logical flow of the argument is interrupted by possibility. The possibility takes out the truth preservation of logical entailment.

The argument doesn't address possibilities. So even if you think that possibilities need to be addressed in discussing this topic, you're no longer talking about LCA.

http://www.debate.org...
"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
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 12:16:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 11:57:52 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/10/2012 11:52:28 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/10/2012 11:42:07 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The logical flow of the argument is interrupted by possibility. The possibility takes out the truth preservation of logical entailment.

The argument doesn't address possibilities. So even if you think that possibilities need to be addressed in discussing this topic, you're no longer talking about LCA.

http://www.debate.org...

Again, this is a question, not about the truth of any of the premises, but about the logical flow, or validity of the argument. In short: does the conclusion follow from the premises? It does, as I showed with a formal representation. I suppose I could make it a bit more robust through the use of quantifiers, but I didn't see the need; predicates are enough. Yet you introduce modalities which seems completely out of left field.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 12:52:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 12:16:30 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/10/2012 11:57:52 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/10/2012 11:52:28 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/10/2012 11:42:07 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The logical flow of the argument is interrupted by possibility. The possibility takes out the truth preservation of logical entailment.

The argument doesn't address possibilities. So even if you think that possibilities need to be addressed in discussing this topic, you're no longer talking about LCA.

http://www.debate.org...

Again, this is a question, not about the truth of any of the premises, but about the logical flow, or validity of the argument. In short: does the conclusion follow from the premises? It does, as I showed with a formal representation. I suppose I could make it a bit more robust through the use of quantifiers, but I didn't see the need; predicates are enough. Yet you introduce modalities which seems completely out of left field.

The Fool: did you check the link. The full argument is shown there.
"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
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 12:52:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 12:52:09 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/10/2012 12:16:30 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/10/2012 11:57:52 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/10/2012 11:52:28 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/10/2012 11:42:07 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The logical flow of the argument is interrupted by possibility. The possibility takes out the truth preservation of logical entailment.

The argument doesn't address possibilities. So even if you think that possibilities need to be addressed in discussing this topic, you're no longer talking about LCA.

http://www.debate.org...

Again, this is a question, not about the truth of any of the premises, but about the logical flow, or validity of the argument. In short: does the conclusion follow from the premises? It does, as I showed with a formal representation. I suppose I could make it a bit more robust through the use of quantifiers, but I didn't see the need; predicates are enough. Yet you introduce modalities which seems completely out of left field.

The Fool: did you check the link. The full argument is shown there.

The modality makes a huge different for logical flow.
"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
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 12:53:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 12:52:09 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/10/2012 12:16:30 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/10/2012 11:57:52 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/10/2012 11:52:28 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/10/2012 11:42:07 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The logical flow of the argument is interrupted by possibility. The possibility takes out the truth preservation of logical entailment.

The argument doesn't address possibilities. So even if you think that possibilities need to be addressed in discussing this topic, you're no longer talking about LCA.

http://www.debate.org...

Again, this is a question, not about the truth of any of the premises, but about the logical flow, or validity of the argument. In short: does the conclusion follow from the premises? It does, as I showed with a formal representation. I suppose I could make it a bit more robust through the use of quantifiers, but I didn't see the need; predicates are enough. Yet you introduce modalities which seems completely out of left field.

The Fool: did you check the link. The full argument is shown there.

Yeah, I know what the full argument is. You're refuting the premises. That's not what this discussion is about. Do you understand that?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 12:54:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 12:52:56 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/10/2012 12:52:09 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/10/2012 12:16:30 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/10/2012 11:57:52 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/10/2012 11:52:28 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/10/2012 11:42:07 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The logical flow of the argument is interrupted by possibility. The possibility takes out the truth preservation of logical entailment.

The argument doesn't address possibilities. So even if you think that possibilities need to be addressed in discussing this topic, you're no longer talking about LCA.

http://www.debate.org...

Again, this is a question, not about the truth of any of the premises, but about the logical flow, or validity of the argument. In short: does the conclusion follow from the premises? It does, as I showed with a formal representation. I suppose I could make it a bit more robust through the use of quantifiers, but I didn't see the need; predicates are enough. Yet you introduce modalities which seems completely out of left field.

The Fool: did you check the link. The full argument is shown there.

The modality makes a huge different for logical flow.

In modal logic, sure. But the LCA doesn't invoke possibilities or necessities, so modal logic is not appropriate.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 1:02:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 12:54:35 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/10/2012 12:52:56 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/10/2012 12:52:09 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/10/2012 12:16:30 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/10/2012 11:57:52 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/10/2012 11:52:28 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/10/2012 11:42:07 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The logical flow of the argument is interrupted by possibility. The possibility takes out the truth preservation of logical entailment.

The argument doesn't address possibilities. So even if you think that possibilities need to be addressed in discussing this topic, you're no longer talking about LCA.

http://www.debate.org...

Again, this is a question, not about the truth of any of the premises, but about the logical flow, or validity of the argument. In short: does the conclusion follow from the premises? It does, as I showed with a formal representation. I suppose I could make it a bit more robust through the use of quantifiers, but I didn't see the need; predicates are enough. Yet you introduce modalities which seems completely out of left field.

The Fool: did you check the link. The full argument is shown there.

The modality makes a huge different for logical flow.

In modal logic, sure. But the LCA doesn't invoke possibilities or necessities, so modal logic is not appropriate.

The Fool: you are right, I must have been thinking about something else. What Fool I am .
"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