Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Argument from Physical Minds/ KCA

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 5:29:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Argument from Physical Minds in a nutshell

"Since all known minds are dependent on brains, there are probably no minds that don't depend on brains. But God is conceived of as a mind that doesn't depend on a brain. Therefore, God probably does not exist."

Kalam Cosmological Argument in a nutshell

"Since all known things that begin have causes, there are probably no things that begin that don't have causes. The universe is conceived of as something that began. Therefore, the universe probably had a cause"

The formula for both arguments are the same

Based on all observation X is dependent on Y, therefore X could not exist without Y. For the Atheist the variable of X is filled with a mind and Y is filled with a brain. For the Theist the variable of X is filled with a beginning and Y is filled with a cause.

If the Theist claims the Argument from Physical Minds is invalid then why not the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

Conclusion

If a brain-independent mind is possible even though it goes against obervation from within the universe, then why not a cause-independent beginning? The first premise of both arguments ("Whatever is a mind depends on a brain", "Whatever begins to exist has a cause") have pretty much the same amount of observational support.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 10:25:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 5:29:24 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Argument from Physical Minds in a nutshell

"Since all known minds are dependent on brains, there are probably no minds that don't depend on brains. But God is conceived of as a mind that doesn't depend on a brain. Therefore, God probably does not exist."
That's a tough one to rebut especially since disembodied minds are not empirically verifiable...or at least as of yet. The counter argument would be that minds/souls are not physical and belong to the non-physical realm...only problem there is that this rests SOLELY on faith because there is no empirical proof for the non-physical.

I would also add that there is no "physical mind" because the mind is simply an abstract concept and not a physical thing.

Kalam Cosmological Argument in a nutshell

"Since all known things that begin have causes, there are probably no things that begin that don't have causes. The universe is conceived of as something that began. Therefore, the universe probably had a cause"
I would only disagree with the fact that there is one thing that has no cause: existence. Therefore, the KCA fails in my book. Has it ever been observed that things simply pop in or out of existence? Answer: no.

If a brain-independent mind is possible even though it goes against obervation from within the universe, then why not a cause-independent beginning?
You can have both as they are not mutually exclusive. Existence is transcendental as far as we know so the Universe has and needs no cause. And non-physical realms are possible in the broadest sense of the term (ie so long as there are no paradoxes I suppose.)

The first premise of both arguments ("Whatever is a mind depends on a brain", "Whatever begins to exist has a cause") have pretty much the same amount of observational support.
Only that things do not begin to exist: existence is transcendental.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 11:43:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I could counter it. but just the fact that nobody has yet means it is very strong
At 4/11/2012 5:29:24 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Argument from Physical Minds in a nutshell

"Since all known minds are dependent on brains, there are probably no minds that don't depend on brains.

The Fool: if anything it could only be shown to be the other way around that physical matter is with the category of mind. For all your phyiscal experiences are from incoming sense information which you percieve through your mind. You need a mind to percieve anything first not the other way around. That is your mind is for sure, every inductive inference you make away from it is less and less liklely.

The Fool: We never know if a mind is destroyed for sure after someone dies, all you could say by induction is that you non longer perceive anyone being in a body. So P1 is refuted.

But God is conceived of as a mind that doesn't depend on a brain.

The Fool: There is no justification to assume this

Therefore, God probably does not exist."


The Fool: probabity droppes the logical certianty of an argument, it still can hold probably. But its big drop in strength. Another apposing logically certain arguement beats it.

Kalam Cosmological Argument in a nutshell

"Since all known things that begin have causes, there are probably no things that begin that don't have causes.

The Fool: you should say that all things are only percieve to begin in the universe, this makes anything about the universe beginning itself beg the question. Aka all matter cannot be created or destoried is a cosmological Killer.

The universe is conceived of as something that began. Therefore, the universe probably had a cause"


The Fool: you can make the jump from conceived to reality. For my conception of a objective with a 1000000000 points is no differnce then my conception of an object with 100000000 points but that doesn' t change the truth of the matter.(never argue from conceptuability.)

The formula for both arguments are the same

Based on all observation X is dependent on Y, therefore X could not exist without Y.

The Fool: do you no experience you feeling, thought of ideas, what makes them less observable then sound, taste, or smells. Are they not empirical (experienced)

For the Atheist the variable of X is filled with a mind and Y is filled with a brain.

The Fool: I am atheist, I don't think that.

For the Theist the variable of X is filled with a beginning and Y is filled with a cause.

The Fool: I admit I dont understand what the hell is going on here.

If the Theist claims the Argument from Physical Minds is invalid then why not the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

The Foo: phyiscal and mind are often considered metaphyisical entities, I think everything is within the category of mind. Another example is that all information enters you body as action potential which travel up your nerve to the brain to mind. But I would say even that is percieved throught the mind.

Conclusion

If a brain-independent mind is possible even though it goes against obervation from within the universe, then why not a cause-independent beginning?

The Fool: The opposite, well I mean, I don;t think you can argue yourself out of your mind. Because lets face it. you would be out of your mind. <(XD)

The first premise of both arguments ("Whatever is a mind depends on a brain", "Whatever begins to exist has a cause") have pretty much the same amount of observational support.

The Fool: Maybe nothing begins to exist and they just come in or out of recognition.
Straight from the Hill
"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
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 3:05:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Tboonepickens: "I would also add that there is no "physical mind" because the mind is simply an abstract concept and not a physical thing."

You are confusing materialism with physicalism. The mind may not be made out of material, you cannot weigh it, but it is still physical.

The_Fool_on_the_hill: "I am atheist, I don't think that."

So you don't believe the mind is dependent on the brain? That's a first for an Atheist, regardless I respect your opinion.

The_Fool_on_the_hill: "I admit I dont understand what the hell is going on here."

No offense, but this is how I feel most of the time when I read your posts. In all honestly, the concept of what I'm trying to get across is real easy to understand.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 3:14:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 3:05:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Tboonepickens: "I would also add that there is no "physical mind" because the mind is simply an abstract concept and not a physical thing."

You are confusing materialism with physicalism. The mind may not be made out of material, you cannot weigh it, but it is still physical.

The_Fool_on_the_hill: "I am atheist, I don't think that."

So you don't believe the mind is dependent on the brain? That's a first for an Atheist, regardless I respect your opinion.

The_Fool_on_the_hill: "I admit I dont understand what the hell is going on here."

No offense, but this is how I feel most of the time when I read your posts. In all honestly, the concept of what I'm trying to get across is real easy to understand.

The Fool: I wrote alot there man. The mind is not an abstract concept, you think of abstract concept with you mind. You are caught up on this what can be true or false is only what you can sense, that is nonsense. You mind is true 100% or you don't exist. You are treating science like a faith. anyway read what I said first . Try and refute it. it impossible.
"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
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 3:22:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 3:14:26 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/12/2012 3:05:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Tboonepickens: "I would also add that there is no "physical mind" because the mind is simply an abstract concept and not a physical thing."

You are confusing materialism with physicalism. The mind may not be made out of material, you cannot weigh it, but it is still physical.

The_Fool_on_the_hill: "I am atheist, I don't think that."

So you don't believe the mind is dependent on the brain? That's a first for an Atheist, regardless I respect your opinion.

The_Fool_on_the_hill: "I admit I dont understand what the hell is going on here."

No offense, but this is how I feel most of the time when I read your posts. In all honestly, the concept of what I'm trying to get across is real easy to understand.

The Fool: I wrote alot there man. The mind is not an abstract concept, you think of abstract concept with you mind. You are caught up on this what can be true or false is only what you can sense, that is nonsense. You mind is true 100% or you don't exist. You are treating science like a faith. anyway read what I said first . Try and refute it. it impossible.

I never said the mind was an abstract concept, what are you talking about? Also, I never said that the AFM is true, I said that if it's considered invalid then the KCA must too because it's based on the same line of reasoning and has just as much observation backing up the premises.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 3:28:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I edit it here.

The problem of percieving everything withen your mind is philosophical problem that has never been solved. Its only been swept under the rug. Physical thing you experience is post-processing. After you brain has processed directly.

Even if you get your armed chopped off, people experience what is called the phantom limb. YOu feel pain in an arm that isnt even there. That is we don't see the world directly as we think we do. We only get mathatical/logical relations.
Notices how physics all boils down to math, we don't actual observe any of it like we think we do.

check out this post after.
http://www.debate.org...

What I mean by faith is that you have to critique science the same way we do everything else. Because they start making claims that don't make sense. Just as well. They forget that they are observing from within the mind. ANd then they end up with nonsense claim like your ideas don't exist. You couldn;t think if they dont' exist. you couldn have any knowledge if they don't exist.

Fool: We never know if a mind is destroyed for sure after someone dies, all you could say by induction is that you non longer perceive anyone being in a body. So P1 is refuted.

The Fool: probability dropped the logical certainty of an argument, it still can hold probably. But its big drop in strength. Another apposing logically certain argument beats it.

The Fool: you should say that all things are only perceived to begin in the universe, this makes anything about the universe beginning itself beg the question.

Aka all matter cannot be created or destroyed is a cosmological Killer. This is logically based and scientifically based. (Law of conservation mass)

The Fool: you can't make the jump from conceived to reality. For my conception of a objective with a 1000000000 points is no difference then my conception of an object with 100000000 points but that doesn't' t change the truth of the matter.(never argue from conceptuality.)

The Fool: do you no experience your feeling, thought of ideas, what makes them less observable then sound, taste, or smells. Are they not empirical (experienced)

The Fool: physical and mind are often considered metaphysical entities, I think everything is within the category of mind. Another example is that all information enters your body as action potential which travel up your nerve to the brain to mind. But I would say even that is perceived through the mind.

The Fool: The opposite, well I mean, I don't think you can argue yourself out of your mind. Because lets face it. you would be out of your mind

The Fool: Maybe nothing begins to exist and they just come in or out of recognition.
"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
4/12/2012 3:30:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You right I am confusing what Tboone said. He is a niave empiricist too.
what that means is you tend to over emphesie sense data as the only data.
"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
4/12/2012 3:40:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 3:30:23 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
You right I am confusing what Tboone said. He is a niave empiricist too.
what that means is you tend to over emphesie sense data as the only data.

What I mean is that physical is in mind not the other way around. That is technichally you have never seen pure physicallity , Its only been throught your mental mind.

Its a bit different then what you are thinking.

The best you can claim is that they have a bi-conditional relationship <->
M<->P which mean that when one changes the other does. They change together. Different sides of the same coin. But to claim that mind is dependent on physical can only be asserted if it was possible jump out of your mind, and see physically purly. But that is impossible.
"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
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 6:50:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 5:29:24 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Argument from Physical Minds in a nutshell

"Since all known minds are dependent on brains, there are probably no minds that don't depend on brains. But God is conceived of as a mind that doesn't depend on a brain. Therefore, God probably does not exist."


Kalam Cosmological Argument in a nutshell


"Since all known things that begin have causes, there are probably no things that begin that don't have causes. The universe is conceived of as something that began. Therefore, the universe probably had a cause"


Except the key premise in the KCA isn't construed as an inductive generalization - it's construed as a metaphysical principle that's known a priori (not a posteriori). That we don't see anything pop into existence out of nothing only confirms that this principle seems to have good warrant. Your parity fails.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 7:45:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 6:50:06 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/11/2012 5:29:24 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Argument from Physical Minds in a nutshell

"Since all known minds are dependent on brains, there are probably no minds that don't depend on brains. But God is conceived of as a mind that doesn't depend on a brain. Therefore, God probably does not exist."


Kalam Cosmological Argument in a nutshell


"Since all known things that begin have causes, there are probably no things that begin that don't have causes. The universe is conceived of as something that began. Therefore, the universe probably had a cause"


Except the key premise in the KCA isn't construed as an inductive generalization - it's construed as a metaphysical principle that's known a priori (not a posteriori). That we don't see anything pop into existence out of nothing only confirms that this principle seems to have good warrant. Your parity fails.

Huh? There is no way to obtain knowledge unless it's experienced or observed from within the universe. If you have no experience and no observational capabilities, then you wouldn't even know what a cause or a beginning is. Therefore, your rebuttal fails.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 7:59:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 7:45:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/12/2012 6:50:06 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/11/2012 5:29:24 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Argument from Physical Minds in a nutshell

"Since all known minds are dependent on brains, there are probably no minds that don't depend on brains. But God is conceived of as a mind that doesn't depend on a brain. Therefore, God probably does not exist."


Kalam Cosmological Argument in a nutshell


"Since all known things that begin have causes, there are probably no things that begin that don't have causes. The universe is conceived of as something that began. Therefore, the universe probably had a cause"


Except the key premise in the KCA isn't construed as an inductive generalization - it's construed as a metaphysical principle that's known a priori (not a posteriori). That we don't see anything pop into existence out of nothing only confirms that this principle seems to have good warrant. Your parity fails.

Huh? There is no way to obtain knowledge unless it's experienced or observed from within the universe. If you have no experience and no observational capabilities, then you wouldn't even know what a cause or a beginning is. Therefore, your rebuttal fails.

Want to debate me on that?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 8:10:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 8:01:04 PM, Ren wrote:
Lmfaoooo challenging PCP on a priori.

Shhhhhhhhh! :)
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 8:34:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 7:45:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/12/2012 6:50:06 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/11/2012 5:29:24 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Argument from Physical Minds in a nutshell

"Since all known minds are dependent on brains, there are probably no minds that don't depend on brains. But God is conceived of as a mind that doesn't depend on a brain. Therefore, God probably does not exist."


Kalam Cosmological Argument in a nutshell


"Since all known things that begin have causes, there are probably no things that begin that don't have causes. The universe is conceived of as something that began. Therefore, the universe probably had a cause"


Except the key premise in the KCA isn't construed as an inductive generalization - it's construed as a metaphysical principle that's known a priori (not a posteriori). That we don't see anything pop into existence out of nothing only confirms that this principle seems to have good warrant. Your parity fails.

Huh? There is no way to obtain knowledge unless it's experienced or observed from within the universe. If you have no experience and no observational capabilities, then you wouldn't even know what a cause or a beginning is. Therefore, your rebuttal fails.

Also to support that Craig doesn't construe his causal premise as an inductive generalization:

"This prompts us to ask why "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" cannot be a necessary a priori truth which can be immediately known. Smith's response is, in effect, that we can imagine a world in which, say, the universe comes into being without a cause. I agree that we can form such a picture in our imagination. But that does nothing to prove that the proposition is not a necessary a priori truth."

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 8:34:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 7:59:46 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/12/2012 7:45:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/12/2012 6:50:06 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/11/2012 5:29:24 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Argument from Physical Minds in a nutshell

"Since all known minds are dependent on brains, there are probably no minds that don't depend on brains. But God is conceived of as a mind that doesn't depend on a brain. Therefore, God probably does not exist."


Kalam Cosmological Argument in a nutshell


"Since all known things that begin have causes, there are probably no things that begin that don't have causes. The universe is conceived of as something that began. Therefore, the universe probably had a cause"


Except the key premise in the KCA isn't construed as an inductive generalization - it's construed as a metaphysical principle that's known a priori (not a posteriori). That we don't see anything pop into existence out of nothing only confirms that this principle seems to have good warrant. Your parity fails.

Huh? There is no way to obtain knowledge unless it's experienced or observed from within the universe. If you have no experience and no observational capabilities, then you wouldn't even know what a cause or a beginning is. Therefore, your rebuttal fails.

Want to debate me on that?

Not really, you may be more educated on these specific philosophical concepts than me. I just don't understand your reasoning, how exactly how can a human obtain knowledge about causes and beginnings if it's not based on observation or experience taking place from within the universe?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 8:49:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I just did a little research on the concept of a priori, causality doesn't apply in that context in my opinion. Maybe the idea that something cannot come from nothing may be a priori, but that has nothing to do with causation. The fact that a wood doesn't form a chair randomly and "begin to exist" without a cause, is strictly based on the observation and experience that all chairs we know that "begin to exist" have causes.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 9:08:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 8:34:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/12/2012 7:45:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/12/2012 6:50:06 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/11/2012 5:29:24 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Argument from Physical Minds in a nutshell

"Since all known minds are dependent on brains, there are probably no minds that don't depend on brains. But God is conceived of as a mind that doesn't depend on a brain. Therefore, God probably does not exist."


Kalam Cosmological Argument in a nutshell


"Since all known things that begin have causes, there are probably no things that begin that don't have causes. The universe is conceived of as something that began. Therefore, the universe probably had a cause"


Except the key premise in the KCA isn't construed as an inductive generalization - it's construed as a metaphysical principle that's known a priori (not a posteriori). That we don't see anything pop into existence out of nothing only confirms that this principle seems to have good warrant. Your parity fails.

Huh? There is no way to obtain knowledge unless it's experienced or observed from within the universe. If you have no experience and no observational capabilities, then you wouldn't even know what a cause or a beginning is. Therefore, your rebuttal fails.

Also to support that Craig doesn't construe his causal premise as an inductive generalization:

"This prompts us to ask why "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" cannot be a necessary a priori truth which can be immediately known. Smith's response is, in effect, that we can imagine a world in which, say, the universe comes into being without a cause. I agree that we can form such a picture in our imagination. But that does nothing to prove that the proposition is not a necessary a priori truth."

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

The Fool: the problem is Craigh should form it in a inductive, he is not justified in claiming anything coming into or out of existence a priori
"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
4/12/2012 9:10:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 9:08:38 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/12/2012 8:34:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/12/2012 7:45:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/12/2012 6:50:06 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/11/2012 5:29:24 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Argument from Physical Minds in a nutshell

"Since all known minds are dependent on brains, there are probably no minds that don't depend on brains. But God is conceived of as a mind that doesn't depend on a brain. Therefore, God probably does not exist."


Kalam Cosmological Argument in a nutshell


"Since all known things that begin have causes, there are probably no things that begin that don't have causes. The universe is conceived of as something that began. Therefore, the universe probably had a cause"


Except the key premise in the KCA isn't construed as an inductive generalization - it's construed as a metaphysical principle that's known a priori (not a posteriori). That we don't see anything pop into existence out of nothing only confirms that this principle seems to have good warrant. Your parity fails.

Huh? There is no way to obtain knowledge unless it's experienced or observed from within the universe. If you have no experience and no observational capabilities, then you wouldn't even know what a cause or a beginning is. Therefore, your rebuttal fails.

Also to support that Craig doesn't construe his causal premise as an inductive generalization:

"This prompts us to ask why "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" cannot be a necessary a priori truth which can be immediately known. Smith's response is, in effect, that we can imagine a world in which, say, the universe comes into being without a cause. I agree that we can form such a picture in our imagination. But that does nothing to prove that the proposition is not a necessary a priori truth."

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

The Fool: the problem is Craigh should form it in a inductive, he is not justified in claiming anything coming into or out of existence a priori

The Fool: Although he should not even be able to claim that all he could claim is things going in and out of recognition, at best.
"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
4/12/2012 9:12:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Biggist problem for the Cosmological argument is that matter cannot be created or destroyed.By law of conservation mass. And by law of none contradiction of existence.

There really is no way around that without being illogical.
"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
4/12/2012 9:14:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 9:12:59 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Biggist problem for the Cosmological argument is that matter cannot be created or destroyed.By law of conservation mass. And by law of none contradiction of existence.

There really is no way around that without being illogical.

Any challengers?
"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
4/12/2012 9:16:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
<(:6) awww.
"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
4/12/2012 9:26:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 9:16:41 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
<(:6) awww.

Its a philosophers sin to avoid refutation.
"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
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 9:13:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 6:50:06 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/11/2012 5:29:24 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Argument from Physical Minds in a nutshell

"Since all known minds are dependent on brains, there are probably no minds that don't depend on brains. But God is conceived of as a mind that doesn't depend on a brain. Therefore, God probably does not exist."


Kalam Cosmological Argument in a nutshell


"Since all known things that begin have causes, there are probably no things that begin that don't have causes. The universe is conceived of as something that began. Therefore, the universe probably had a cause"


Except the key premise in the KCA isn't construed as an inductive generalization - it's construed as a metaphysical principle that's known a priori (not a posteriori). That we don't see anything pop into existence out of nothing only confirms that this principle seems to have good warrant. Your parity fails.

So basically, the problem with your response is the concept of ex nihilo nihil fit has nothing to do with causation. Something cannot come from nothing, is a concept not directly based on observation or experience I agree (however it still is technically based on experience and observation, because if you had no experience you wouldn't even know that "something" even existed) . However causation is a different story, the fact that things have causes is directly based on experience and observation...The fact that something cannot pop into existence uncaused from absolutely nothing may be a valid claim, however so is the fact that something cannot pop into existence from absolutely nothing under any circumstance. Therefore, the concept ex nihilo nihil fit has nothing to do with causation.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 12:28:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 3:05:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
You are confusing materialism with physicalism. The mind may not be made out of material, you cannot weigh it, but it is still physical.
Hmm. Please explain as they are equivalent; the term physicalism is preferred over the older materialism term.

Is the number 7 a physical thing? Answer: no. It is a concept, an abstract concept just like the mind. However, I do maintain that they are BOTH of these are predicated on the physical. In other words; if there is no physical brain then there is no mind or concept of the number 7.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 1:22:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 12:28:40 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 4/12/2012 3:05:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
You are confusing materialism with physicalism. The mind may not be made out of material, you cannot weigh it, but it is still physical.
Hmm. Please explain as they are equivalent; the term physicalism is preferred over the older materialism term.

Is the number 7 a physical thing? Answer: no. It is a concept, an abstract concept just like the mind. However, I do maintain that they are BOTH of these are predicated on the physical. In other words; if there is no physical brain then there is no mind or concept of the number 7.

NO Tboon 7 is an concept/idea grasp by the mind, For when I am talking about 'The white house" I am not at the white house. But then what i am talking about. Obviously the stored idea in my memory of what I last scene and know of 'the white house.' It is not a Abstract Idea, its a specific, and existing Idea. Or I couldn;t even think about 'The White House' No existing Ideas, NO KNOWLEDGE>
"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